This is a numbers game, faggots.
Printable View
This is a numbers game, faggots.
I think abortion should be actively promoted in schools.
Buy two abortions get the third for free.
Talk to your Congressman.Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh
We really need more pro-abortion rallies. Instead of letting the right wing Nut Jobs take all the news.
Free Abortion Tuesdays?
buy1gitonefreeimo
Seriously, what is wrong with letting people you don't like not have kids?
LOL Conservatives scream less government yet want the government to ban people from doing shit they don't like.
and slaughter brown people!
Bull fucking shit. Find me a source that shows 70% support.Quote:
Originally Posted by dave is ok
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/02/wa...on/02poll.html
From March 2 2007:
55% of those polled believe health insurance for all is the most important domestic policy for the congress and the president to concentrate on.
65% believe it is more important to insure every American than keep costs down.
70% state that it is a serious problem many Americans do not have health insurance.
Here are a few other polls:
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/15715
http://www.gallup.com/poll/102349/an...americans.aspx
http://abcnews.go.com/images/pdf/935a3HealthCare.pdf
June 20, 2009 - New York Times/CBS PollQuote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/he...poll.html?_r=2
Don't worry. I'll sell you guys antibiotics cheap over the border.
The econamic and political conservatives of the 80s are dead. The republican party no longer stands for that sort of conservative behavior. It now stands for social conservatives. It has become just like the democratic part of the late 80s and 90s. Wasteful and controlling. The only difference is where and what they want to control and waste money on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anal Kaboom
Neither party represent sain people. And they scary thing about all of that is that the modern republican party is trying its damnedest to make old republicans into mad men through scare tactics and out right lies. And it is working *waves to Yoshi*
Poor guy it's like he doesn't see his party is bullshit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mman
Thanks for finding polls that talk in generalities instead of the bill in question. I support protecting unicorns, but I haven't seen a bill to get behind on the subject. Jesus Christ. Mman's first link is from 2007. Honestly, I am surprised it was ever that high though. Although this is the general public we're talking about, so nothing should surprise anyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by dave is ok
:wtf: I agree that neither party is ideal, but I am not sure how you think any real conservatives are being scared into anything by the "Neo Cons." My opinions haven't changed on anything political that I can think of since I voted for the first time for Dole in 1996. And I am not sure they changed much prior to that either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
This Bill really needs to pass, I don't mind if in 4 years the Republican Congress goes through and edits it, in fact I'll probably welcome if they can fine tune it when they're done being children about everything. What a horrible congress, Democrats lack balls and the Republicans are so childish about everything that nothing gets accomplished.
This bill is an unmitigated disaster, which is why the Democrats don't even have the balls to vote on the bill itself in the House. All you need to know is that it takes 14 years to pay for 10 years of it. Nothing else about it really matters. I'm sure the something for nothing crowd doesn't care about that though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave is ok
Not giving NPR a hit.
Way to be part of the problem!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...2/facepalm.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
lol@Yoshi not being ok with a healthcare reform bill, but being fine with trillion dollar tax cuts for rich motherfuckers.
I could potentially be ok with a health care reform bill. I am absolutely not ok with this health care reform bill. Does it address the root cause of the problem? The lawyers responsible for ridiculously expensive malpractice suits and therefore insurance? Of course not, because they are those lawyers.
Versus constantly accruing loses? 14 years to pay off 10 of it is better than the current system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Damn you are dense. The thing doesn't stop after 10 years. It just increases the rate at which we accrue losses.
How do you feel about California and Texas's expansive tort reform laws that did almost nothing to lower the overall cost of healthcare in those states?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
The words "tort reform" and "insurance across state lines" are like passwords that let my brain know not to take the person who said them seriously.
/groanQuote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
I couldn't care less what California or Texas do. Here is what I know from first hand experience. Doctors over test and over diagnose to cover their asses from malpractice. My wife recently made an awful decision to take our daughter to the emergency room for a fucking fever. The clowns ruled out a urinary tract infection, an ear infection, and one other thing I forget before deciding it was a virus, which was by far the most likely culprit. Hundreds of dollars later, we got some God damned Motrin, and they avoided exposure for a malpractice suit. That is what is driving up costs for insurance companies that then pass that along to us.Quote:
Originally Posted by dave is ok
edit: If common sense was ineffective in Texas and California, it is likely due to supporting illegal immigrants, since those states have to be way above average in that area.
So you and your wife are retards for not giving your daughter Motrin at home and skipping the ER?
I agree that doctors over test and charge as many stupid little things as possible, but I don't think it's to cover their ass for malpractice suits (at least not primarily). It's because they are usually investors in the facilities they work in and the more shit they can bill - the richer they become. On a rare case where they are dealing with unproven medicine, sure they might take the extra precaution to avoid getting hammered by a lawsuit, but I really doubt thats why the doctor at the ER fleeced your family. It's greed
No. My mom works in the medical field it is to cover their ass for malpractice. They are taught here to do it, to cover their ass.
NJ is one of the highest Malpractice lawsuit states.
I already said this.Quote:
Originally Posted by dave is ok
I have no doubt that there are doctors like this as well. That's still not an insurance issue though, unless you're going to make a flowchart that tells them what tests they can and can't do for what symptoms.Quote:
I agree that doctors over test and charge as many stupid little things as possible, but I don't think it's to cover their ass for malpractice suits (at least not primarily). It's because they are usually investors in the facilities they work in and the more shit they can bill - the richer they become. On a rare case where they are dealing with unproven medicine, sure they might take the extra precaution to avoid getting hammered by a lawsuit, but I really doubt thats why the doctor at the ER fleeced your family. It's greed
Here's the bill.
http://rules.house.gov/bills_details.aspx?NewsID=4606
lol, you went to the ER and thought it was going to be cheap.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Your family too special to go to a family practice?
Yeah, I'm sure that is the only thing fucking up the tort reform in texas and cali.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Yoshi might be a dick but he and probably his wife are not retarded. I'd guess their kid got sick over a weekend or at night when few doctors save hospital will see them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
The health care industry is run like shit. There's so much waste in it it's absurd and probably only 15% of it is covering asses against malpractice suits.
Yes, the big bad greedy doctors. They're out to eat your money.Quote:
Originally Posted by dave is ok
It's Yoshi's first kid. Shit like this happens to EVERYONE who isn't experienced. You won't let your child die because you wanted to be cheap. What the fuck is wrong with some of you?
I'd expect a "down to earth" conservative like yoshi to have a better relationship with a family doctor. One that he can get ahold of on weekends.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bojack
Otherwise, he kind of is retarded. If you expect a visit to a multimillion dollar hospital, on the spot, to be cheap, you're fucking stupid. Would you expect a mechanic that worked on your car, any time, any day, to be cheap? Or what if you drove to an airport right this second and wanted to fly somewhere today, would that be cheap?
Like it or not but the only way for shit like the ER to be cost affective is public health care. There is no cheap capitalistic McDonald's hospital.
It might be cool if we had a purely capitalistic hospital or two, but we all know America is full of way to many sandy wet pussies for that to ever happen. Long gone are the days where if you died it was your own damn fault.
Especially since given the age of child certain fever points pediatricians say to take the kid to the hospital as soon as possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Razor Ramon
Well he needs to shut the fuck up then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Razor Ramon
Don't complain about cost when you know well you'd pay double.
You guys are being fucking retarded. Was it a smart decision? WHO GIVES A FUCK it's his kid. Jesus christ. He wasn't really complaining about the cost in context. He was complaining about the irrational number of tests done, which increase the cost, because the doctors feel they have to in order to avoid a malpractice charge.
QFT.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thief Silver
Also to BC: He wasn't complaingin about cost. He was complaining about the tests.
I think he has Group Healthcare through his company.<- Pretty sure about this one.
She's not dead. Those assholes.
So let me get this straight, because I'm not really clear what the conservative solution to this would be. Tort reform and selling across state lines--Is that it? My problem with conservatives is that they mostly groan about the current bill but don't offer realistic alternative solutions.
Excuse me if I sound dense, but how far would you allow the government to control when you, the public, can press charges against your doctor for malpractice? And in terms of selling across state lines, won't companies scurry to the cheapest state, collect the tax profits and pocket it rather than pass savings on to the consumer?
The conservative solution is either A) you get an awesome job with good company insurance options B) Go to church and old women help you to make themselves feel better or C) you fucking die, you lazy Satan worshiping asshole.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr-K
I don't want the cartoon evil Conservative solution, I want an actual tangible one.
There's more to it than that. Before, we get into that let me adress the other questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr-K
No. Tort reform is not stopping Malpractive lawsuits. Its to limit the amount you can sue for. NJ is one of the worst states and has asked for TORT reform. Corzine promised he would. He never did. Never even asked for a Bill. So, all Tort Reform is to put a cap on the dollar amounts. As of now you can sue McD's for like 5 mill for a Hot Coffee spill. Or more to the point, if you shop at a local supermarket and you slip and fall. If the Market doesn't have it on tape and theres no proof you did it on purpose. You can get anywhere from 500k to 1 million dollars.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr-K
Its not selling. Its buying across statelines. If I hear that Countrywide of ohio is selling a healthcare plan for diabetics cheaper than in NJ. I would be allowed to buy that insurance. Not only private individuals, but also small businesses. If my child has downs syndrome and I live in Colorado (I know someone who has this exact situation.) And I have a small business. Yet I hear that in Oregon, they have insurance almost 5k cheaper. I should be allowed to buy it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr-K
Its not selling. Its buying and its not statelines its more countrywide. I mean two years ago NJ finally allowed Geico and other Auto Insurance companies into NJ. The rates LOWERED, not a lot. But for people with excellent driving records it lowered them a ton. My mom's rate dropped by 200 bucks. Then Corzine did other things to off-set that ... Thanks asshole.
----------------------------------------
EDIT: Here's the side by side comparison of the GOP plan and the Pelosi plan.
http://gopleader.gov/UploadedFiles/a...approaches.pdf
Here's the official GOP plan.
http://rules-republicans.house.gov/M...tive3962_9.pdf
To amend dave is ok's post, anyone who talks up "tort reform" and brings up the hot coffee spill DEFINITELY shouldn't be listened to. It was actually a totally legitimate case.Quote:
As of now you can sue McD's for like 5 mill for a Hot Coffee spill.
Besides, I can sue McD's for $100 million dollars for soggy fries if I want. Will I get it? Probably not. That's for the legal system to decide.
What guarantee is there that once you start allowing this, the prices will stay low? Maybe the reason why Oregon's rates are 5k cheaper is because the risk profile of the itizens is different from Colorado. Start bringing in Colorado people in, and oops, there goes that difference. Companies do adjust their rates based on prior experience, ya know.Quote:
Its buying across statelines.
All letting credit cards "sell across state lines" and have the issuing states law supercede the law where the actual cardholder was located accomplished was fucking over everyone who ever owned a credit card.
With health insurance, a similar race to the bottom would occur.
And for the retard who claimed that doctors were not running extra tests to pad their wallets, here's an interesting read on the most expensive county for health care in the United States, in which a group of doctors is to blame for a good deal of the cost inflation.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...a_fact_gawande
Nice article; like urinary flow tests to test the prostate, so if it's bad, they'd get a PSA? Really? Tests to check if you should do another cheap uninvasive test is the stupidest shit in the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by dave is ok
Capitalism is too entrenched into your health system to save it. I can tell that by just the sheer degree of redundant drug ads on TV. Advertising budget is factored into the cost of the drug you buy :) so basically they're making you pay for being told about a drug, something that should be done at the very endpoint of care, not the start.
If you bring in a universal system now, all you will be doing is opening your coffers to the same vultures, you may as well just give them the key to fort Knox. But if you don't they'll do the same but with their current means. So you're fucked either way.
Think of it this way, health care should have the most direct route to you; it should be between you and your doctor; with your doctor being limited by his resources. Instead you have all these people; lawyers, drug companies, insurance companies; in between the path of care between you and your doctor; all taking a chunk of the pie.
Yeah, single payer would be the only way to save a ton of money - but people would freak the fuck out over eliminating those thousands and thousands of jobs and companies.
Nobody really takes that shit though.Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
You too special to fucking read?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
And it was a Friday or Saturday night, so the options were limited.
If the advertising didn't work or make them money, they wouldn't do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr-K
This is definitely true. And while I support informed consumers, going to the doctor to get a prescription is not like shopping for a TV (or at least it shouldn't be). The doctor should be making recommendations; advertising should not be skewing medical facts. And Jesus Christ are the side effects scary.Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
My main gripe with people that bring up insurance company X's 3% profit margin is the absurd amounts of money they spend on lobbying, bonuses, advertisements, etc.
Profit margins are easily fucked with. If they have an 8% profit margin, it just lets them spend a billion or two on fighting legislation that will harm them so it can be written off and they have a nice talking point about how low their new margin is. It's annoying
These are publicly traded companies, so they have to follow regulations on how they report earnings and profits. Granted, there is wiggle room in those regulations, but they can't be completely creative or any worse than any other industry.
Publicly traded companies which will never be called out on any illegal activity they partake in.
United Health Group gobbles other companies up like Pac-Man and does it with no worries whatsoever because of the antitrust exemption, defraud consumers with price fixing, backdate stock options, etc.
They just pay a 7 million dollar fine and keep on doing the shit.
Right guy- Healthcare? Are you crazy? We can't afford that!Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Left guy- But what about those two wars? We can't afford those either.
Right guy- But Americans could die if we stop fighting those!
In all seriousness I do have to agree with Yoshi on one thing: The real problem actually is the high cost in the first place, not the insurance to cover the high cost.
The only reason liberals are trying to pass this healthcare bill is so they can give more free shit to the illegals.
I didn't know they had an antitrust exemption. I thought that was reserved for important shit like baseball.Quote:
Originally Posted by dave is ok
No, the illegals can't vote. It's so they can buy more votes from the burdens on society. Because you'll notice that the Congressional health care plan is not affected by the bill, so they don't want the shit they are peddling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Holliday
QFT.Quote:
Originally Posted by Razor Ramon
Also: I think the biggest issue in this is how we're supposed to pay for it. Isn't it like half a trillion (or billion?) cut from Medicare, increased taxes on businesses (big & small), as well as assumed income from fines generated from said businesses and individuals who don't buy healthcare after the bill is passed?
I'd post links, but from my last post, far be for me to link to a constitutional lawyer to speak on constitutional law (Mark Levin), so I'm sure anything else I post will be shot down if not agreed with. Although in that respect, none of us should take what ANYONE in this thing is saying at face value. Just read the 2000+ page bill yourself and see if you like it...
http://www.the-nextlevel.com/board/p...&pictureid=854Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
God damn it. :lol:
It's easy to find unbiased reporting on what the actual bill contains and does not contain, the problem is that you aren't interested in unbiased reporting. If you want to hate the bill, you'll find a reason, if you want to like it you will also find a reason. The people talking about this bill on the radio and on most news stations are misrepresenting the facts horribly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hero
The main question is 'Does it do anything to control costs?' in my opinion it does. It doesn't do enough but if the bill is passed and looked upon favorably, in the near future we could get public option which would control costs much more effectively.
I'd much rather spend a trillion on trying to fix this problem then ignore it for another four or five decades. If Bush didn't rob the U.S. of two trillion dollars in tax revenue during his eight years, it'd already be paid for and thensome.
Clearly you are wrong. It is to aid radical Islamic and Venezuelan terrorist cells in infiltrating our borders and then suppling them with free healthcare, paid by the taxpayers, so they may be healthy enough to strap bombs to their chests!Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Doc, you are a TERRORIST SOCIALIST MOSLIM, and your birth certificate was FORGED!
I thought the bill was to help liberals identify Santa Claus so they could kill him... by firing live adorable puppies at his head from a high pressure cannon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Holliday
Guh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Holliday
I have no doubt that for some liberals and conservatives, they do what they do because they honestly believe in it, and that it will make the world a better place. There are more than enough though who say it's in our interest because their real concern is in accumulating power. The generic, stereotyped forms of power in this case are military (OMG CONSERVATIVE RIGHT WINGNUT GUN-TOTING NAZIS) and social/civil (OMG MIND CONTROLLING SOCIAL ENGINEERING PINKO COMMIES).
To pretend like one side or another is without sin is delusional, prescribing to the religion and blind faith of politics. To pretend like liberals are the pristine heroes, Great Crusaders for the Great Cause, is just as bad as spitting out vitriol to anyone who thinks the contrary. Just as bad as conservatives who think no conservative can do wrong. Although not as bad as those who rail the other side for wrong doing, but are quick to excuse/apologize/explain away the same type of sin. How many conservatives blast Clinton but were quick to excuse their own leaders' moral ambiguity? How many liberals give Clinton a pass and are quick to dig into any conservative scandal?
So no, it's not a matter of "pass this healthcare bill is so they can give more free shit to the illegals" because, as Yoshi said, they can't vote anyway. If we're to believe that this is what it's about - the votes. If Democrats really wanted to 'buy votes' with this bill, they'd realize that for whatever reason, the political climate does not want this bill. At least by enough that they could kill their reelection chances by passing it.
Which, is really WHY this thing has taken so long. It's not about Reps being childish and blockading shit because, AFAIK, the Dems have a strong enough majority that they could go to town with the bill, Rep approval or not.
So it really comes down to divisions among Dems, be it idealogical (Blue Dogs) or purely for survival's sake. If someone doesn't want to lose their power, they'd be more apt to him and haw until there's the political will, or until the people's attention is elsewhere.
If you want to talk about "buying votes" from illegal residents, look no further than the now-dead amnesty bill. That was the true way in, which is why Dem and Rep alike tried to back it - both think if they're the party to let illegals into the party, they'd be owed votes in return. The irony here is there's already enough social stigma around Reps that no matter how in-step they are with a Dem on an issue, they'll always be seen as the heartless, evil mass that wants only white rich men to walk this earth.
Going back, the issues I have with health care is a) it's not a right b) there's no power in the Constitution to force people into a healthcare system and c) the cost-saving measures are temporary at best, and a shell game of switching costs here to costs there at worst.
Ultimately, yes, I want people to live happy, healthy lives. I believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Given the founding father's ideologies in framing the Constitution though, I don't think the right to 'life' is intended to mean it's the government's duty to safeguard everyone and provide healthcare forever and ever. I think it means a right to life in the sense that government has no business taking your life from you, either directly (death) or indirectly (servitude to the government). This is backed up by following clauses of liberty (freedoms) and pursuit of happiness. If not everyone will be happy with this bill, why is it it will be foisted on us all? Where's the opt-out option? How come if I choose to continue life uninsured I could face fines? As the bill is, I stand to lose (more) of my life (spent time working to pay for fines), liberty (punishment to exercise freedom), or pursuit of happiness (I don't like the bill, but I'll still have to be a part of it).
Constitutionally there's nothing stating this kind of power resides in the federal government's power, nor any body of government. As much as I know there are other abuses of power, other forms of overreaching, this one does stand to change an awful lot of how or lives work, as well as a good chunk of our economy. It's the most pressing, prevalent issue today as well, so of course it's in the front of everyone's minds. There's no precedent for this bill in the Constitution, which is why they're trying to make it an argument of the commerce clause (AFAIK), and why 37 states (I could be wrong on this number) are looking to battle this thing in courts if it passes.
Even if it weren't a matter of the Constitution, there's still a matter of costs. Too much of the bill appears to rely on revenue that isn't around and has yet to be generated. It's a cost-saving measure only in the first 10 years, with no expenditures made til 2012 (or was it 2013-14?). This means for the first few years we're just paying for the thing, and only later do the benefits kick in. I understand that predicting costs isn't perfect, and to do so beyond ten years is a big order...but so are the changes the bill promises.
I'd think we should be a little more sure of costs and all. Not to mention a lot of the ways the bill promises to 'save' has to deal with cutting back Medicare. So it's more like shifting costs from one place to another, not saving. And I've yet to read anything on the impact this will have to taxes, inflation, debt, et al. Nothing is ever free - so this measure WILL be carried on the backs of someone. Be it the "rich" (I didn't know $200,000 - $250,000 a year was 'rich' in 2010), future generations due to inflation, or to our creditors (China will be pissed...).
I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting what's best for everyone, but I also know you can't 'save' everyone (especially those who don't want to save themselves), and that everything in life is a matter of trading one thing for another. I wouldn't want free healthcare if it meant robbing the life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness from another. I wouldn't want those things taken from me forcibly either, even for a good cause. So to me, there has to be another way of making things more affordable for people, thus ensuring coverage for all (or at least a larger percentage) but this bill isn't it. Too many things rub me the wrong way.
Where at?Quote:
Originally Posted by dave is ok
Spending this much on something that doesn't do enough but may/may not make future legislation favorable sounds like a heavy price for a minor fix and a half-hearted promise. How does it control costs too? It may for the recipient, but that only means someone somewhere else is gonna feel the sting.Quote:
The main question is 'Does it do anything to control costs?' in my opinion it does. It doesn't do enough but if the bill is passed and looked upon favorably, in the near future we could get public option which would control costs much more effectively.
I'm beginning to question your idea of 'unbiased reporting'Quote:
If Bush didn't rob the U.S.
Ok, you have no clue what you're talking about. I get it now
So in you're opinion, giving huge tax breaks to the class that pays the least in taxes doesn't rob the United States of tax revenue?
If the OUTRAGEOUS grievance doesn't stop, our forefathers will have to RISE AGAINST IT!
Click for full size
To say "both sides to do it" is fine. To say "Because both sides to it, both sides are equally corrupt and none of the details matter" is retardedQuote:
Originally Posted by Hero
GOP Talking Points #1 and #2Quote:
Originally Posted by Hero
GOP Talking Point #3Quote:
Originally Posted by Hero
GOP Talking Point #4Quote:
Originally Posted by Hero
The many many filibusters this session and the hundreds of bills that have passed the House and are waiting to pass the Senate still say otherwise... along with the unconfirmed appointments from a year ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hero
How is 57 democrat senators a strong enough majority when you need 60 to break a filibuster and pass something?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hero
They are stopping any legislation they can. They don't want Obama to be able to claim a single victory come re-election time. There are really very few "issues" that Reps are "in-step" with the Dems on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hero
Good argument. Talking Point #5Quote:
Originally Posted by Hero
Theres nowhere in the Constitution that says the Federal Government can collect taxes on our income either. (HINT: The Commerce Clause allows for all of this shit)Quote:
Originally Posted by Hero
ALSO: Talking Point #6
Save it for the campaignQuote:
Originally Posted by Hero
Acting like you knew all the founding fathers personally may as well be a GOP Talking Point at this point, #7.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hero
It's a majority-rule democracy retard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hero
The Republicans removed itQuote:
Originally Posted by Hero
Because our government are whores for private industry. Welcome to MassachusettsQuote:
Originally Posted by Hero
lol (at you) and (your) paran(theses).Quote:
Originally Posted by Hero
Talking Point #8. I'm sure you cried yourself to sleep when we spend billions to bail out failed banks and to fight meaningless wars and give ridiculous tax cuts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hero
I'm just going to LOL that Hero wrote a fucking book of a post in reply to Doc's obvious trolling.
HAY HERO!Quote:
Originally Posted by Hero
You DO realize that "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" is not in the Constitution right?
Stop listening to right wing paid operatives who are leveraging the ignorance of "middle class" people like you to advance their corporatist agendas.
The American "political climate" does not want anything aside from massive tax breaks to rich people because the American "political climate" is bought and sold by rich people. Besides, the opposition to health care reform (ANY HCR) out there is from right wing astroturfing and paid lobbyists. Fuck 'em.Quote:
the political climate does not want this bill.
As far as I know the AARP backs the bill and there is no way they would back it if the cuts were materially damaging to Medicare. From what I understand, a large cut of it is coming from Medicare Advantage, which is basically a corporate welfare racket not dissimilar to the student loan scam. Fuck 'em.Quote:
Not to mention a lot of the ways the bill promises to 'save' has to deal with cutting back Medicare.
That's what I'd like to see.Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
If it's the best way to run health, I'm sure all the people working in the glut of things will find work pushing paper elsewhere. At least I'd hope so.Quote:
Originally Posted by dave is ok
Never said that, BUT it's because of these inconsistencies that any point I make you'll be quick to point to as biased, right-wing agenda propaganda brainwashing. When entrenched enough in the 'cause' anything against it is wrong flat out. And you get to use the conservative-conspiracy as the get out of jail free card, meaning you don't need to deem the argument worthy of a valid response. Or vice versa - a conservative with so much belief in their group will write off anything a liberal says as false. If you look at it as both sides being fallible, and that anything anyone says is only half-informed (with half of that being misinformation), then it bears argument that everyone should practice more scrutiny. Or at the extreme, that no one KNOWS anything unless they participated in said event themselves. Or in a less extreme case, no one knows shit about this health bill that hasn't read the entire thing themselves. But seeing as how we're both looking at this from the view of second-hand info:Quote:
Originally Posted by dave is ok
You'll just write off what I say and call it a day.Quote:
GOP Talking Points #1 and #2
I'll give you this but I never said they weren't being chilidsh...Quote:
The many many filibusters this session and the hundreds of bills that have passed the House and are waiting to pass the Senate still say otherwise... along with the unconfirmed appointments from a year ago.
...just that being childish wasn't the issue blocking Dems from doing this. They may lack a supermajority but still hold a simple majority and could get this done. But I think that they may lack the political will to do it, meaning that certain Dems are getting cold feet. Not to mention that there are other Dems that don't care for the bill as it is on principle. Some think it's not enough, others think it costs too much, and I'm sure there are other grievances to be found, motivated by genuine or manufactured concern.Quote:
How is 57 democrat senators a strong enough majority when you need 60 to break a filibuster and pass something?
Let's forget how we got where we are and just ask - with the popularity of the bill slipping (by your account, due to misinformation/propaganda), the real question is: can it be seen as a victory, as-is? If all Reps were concerned solely in making him look bad, wouldn't they finally let this go, let the damage be done, so they can 'fix' things in reelection? And if you think that's the case, where's the same worldview cynicism for the Dems?Quote:
They are stopping any legislation they can. They don't want Obama to be able to claim a single victory come re-election time.
I agree - I think there are still plenty of differences. Some stem from a superficial need to look different, others very real. But I think they trend more together than people give credit for. Both have expanded the size of government and federal power in the past few decades in different realms. Only difference is a Dem says its for your own good - a Rep pretends like they care for your freedom.Quote:
There are really very few "issues" that Reps are "in-step" with the Dems on.
I know and agree that The Commerce Clause allows for all of it. None of it sits well with me.Quote:
[Theres nowhere in the Constitution that says the Federal Government can collect taxes on our income either. (HINT: The Commerce Clause allows for all of this shit)
I admit I don't know their intentions from the Constitution, which is why The Federalist Papers and other documents from that time help frame the context further. Given that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is all together, I assume that means all three are to be mutual benefits, no one trumps at the cost of another. Again, assuming.Quote:
Acting like you knew all the founding fathers personally may as well be a GOP Talking Point at this point, #7.
I know, so I'll clarify - what if this passes and 51% of people don't want it? Also: Tell that to the people trying to overturn Prop 8 (the most retarded, unconstitutional piece of shit bill, but it was voted in by a majority in CA)Quote:
It's a majority-rule democracy retard.
That's fucked up. Where can I read more on that?Quote:
The Republicans removed it
I thought the banks should've failed. Same with the auto industry. I'm not a fan of taxes but also know that with bloated budgets, money has to come from somewhere.Quote:
Talking Point #8. I'm sure you cried yourself to sleep when we spend billions to bail out failed banks and to fight meaningless wars and give ridiculous tax cuts.
Fuck, Declaration of Independence. My bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
The Dems had all of last year to pass a Healthcare bill. They had a supermajority in the House and Senate. Supermajority meaning the Repubs could not filibuster.
As it stands now, the Dems can still pass this. Yet they need a "Deem and Pass" aka Slaughter rule to get a Bill on the desk of the President. If you want to point the finger as to why it hasn't passed blame the Dems in the House. They sat on the bill they are now voting on since September of last year. Check the links I posted. One of which was the Bill from last year. The other bill I posted was the Reconciliation Bill.
Also to Hero: They are cutting 500 million out of Medicare to fund the Health Care bill. When this passes the taxes on the Bill start. Income tax goes up for anyone making over 150k a year, including small business and families. Any company who has group health insurance will get a 25% tax increase, unless they offer the Public Option ooops I mean Gov't healthcare. Also, if you are part of the Union and have the Cadillac Healthcare you won't be taxed. Unless, your a small business. Then you get a 5% tax hike. Medicare Advantage which lowers prescription drug costs to seniors and allows them to go to any doctor, not just Medicare authorized Docs. Is gone like the dodo bird. Even in the Reconciliation bill, which I read. There is no mention of that. BUT The Gator-Aid stipulation is still in, you know anyone living in Florida whose on Medicare will be excluded from the cut of Medicare Advantage.
That's just the nature of the beast in a representative democracy. It really seems like many issues in America are split evenly and it pisses me off to no end to hear the AM radio fearmongers claiming to know what 'America' wants. Gore won 51% of the popular vote, so there is an example right there of your hypothetical situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hero
Also, just recently Scott Brown won about 51% of the vote in MA. It doesn't mean 100% of MA is against healthcare reform, it means 50%ish of MA doesn't want it. If Mitt Romney never passed his own bastardized version of Universal Health Care in MA, there is no way Scott Brown wins that election.
I think the bill sucks. I don't think anyone in their right mind would claim it doesn't, but it fixes two or three huge problems and creates a couple more smaller problems. Private interests rule this country so we will never see single payer, although it clearly makes the most sense - we will see mandates that force us to give our money to private interests, which may or may not be unconstitutional.. My opinion on why we must swallow this particular poison is that young people will not buy insurance otherwise. It is too expensive. And without young/healthy people buying into an insurance market, the old/sick people get fucked.
Really, our generation is just fucked either way. The baby boomers are going to bankrupt everything and we will not be benefiting from the programs we spent our entire lives paying into - unless some brave congressmen/congresswomen defy their wealthy overlords and change some of the rules.
EDIT: Also, the opt-out public option died because the Republicans and Blue Dogs will not pass a bill with any public option. Period.
It'd be too embarassing five years from now when the health care costs of states that opted-in would be half of those who opted-out.
That's God Damn awesome. I can do that too!Quote:
Originally Posted by Advocate
------------------Sniveling weak Commie plan---------------------Cheebs plan
Good for money?-------------no-----------------------------yes. Super duper good.
Good for not spending
as much?--------------------no------------------------------Damn straight.
Good for not taking
your tax dollars?--------------no----------------------------Will actually cut taxes.
-------------------------------------------------------------WITH A CHAIN SAW!!!
Low cost?----------------$2,395,984,999,239,452------------------$9.99
Will you end up with
less money?-------------you won't have money------------------You keep money
Mandatory scrotum
amputation?-----------------yes--------------------------------------no
This is 100% true. Instead of liberals and conservatives, we should be starting a Generation X party to try to defend ourselves and our children against this.Quote:
Originally Posted by dave is ok
Wrong #1: The Dems never had a supermajority. Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders are lumped with the Dems for cacauses but in the case of Lieberman (and some Blue Dogs, who are barely Democrats) they never had the votes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Advocate
Wrong #2: The House has been fantastic. They passed their Health Care bill in a timely fashion (H.R. 2500 I think), had all the votes all along, and even got a public option passed. The Senate is where everything got fucked up. The reason the bill is at the House now is that the House is passing an amended version of the shitty, horrible, backroom deal laden Senate bill.
Wrong #3: They are cutting some money from Medicare fraud and waste, but I believe what you are referring to is Medicare Advantage. What is Medicare Advantage? Basically Insurance Company A said to the Government "Hey, give us some of your Medicare customers, we can give them the same care as you for lower administrative costs and pass the savings onto them", the Government replied "Sure, sounds awesome"... Anyway, some time passes and the Government realizes that Insurance Company A were fucking liars because the customers they gave to them are paying the same or more than they were before.
I wish I could piss in every baby boomer's face. Of course, most of your moms are boomers, so I have a head start.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
They did have a Supermajority. You're using Symantics to say that Moderate Dems are not Dems. The same thing Yoshi and a few other Conservatives have said about Bush. Yet you still say Bush is a Republican, like we say Dems had a supermajority. So, if you say you didn't then let us say Bush wasn't a conservative.Quote:
Originally Posted by dave is ok
Also, Bush was a RINO. Republican In Name Only.
Really? Last I checked the Senate past theirs in June. August was the House. They both worked on two separate bills. Both claim to do the same thing. Both have different things in the bill.Quote:
Originally Posted by dave is ok
Its a long TLDR wiki page, so I'll post the whole link and use what is said about Medicare Advantage in here.Quote:
Originally Posted by dave is ok
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicar...ited_States%29
To agree with HALF of your post ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiki
Summarize: Dave is OK! He's right. The promise of lower cost did not happen, but ....Quote:
Traditional or "fee-for-service" Medicare has a standard benefit package that covers medically necessary care members can receive from nearly any hospital or doctor in the country. For people who choose to enroll in a Medicare Advantage health plan, Medicare pays the private health plan a capitated rate, or a set amount, every month for each member. Members typically also pay a monthly premium in addition to the Medicare Part B premium to cover items not covered by traditional Medicare (Parts A & B), such as prescription drugs, dental care, vision care and gym or health club memberships. In exchange for these extra benefits, enrollees may be limited on the providers they can receive services from without paying extra. Typically, the plans have a "network" of providers that patients can use. Going outside that network may require permission or extra fees.
Medicare Advantage plans are required to offer coverage that meets or exceeds the standards set by the original Medicare program, but they do not have to cover every benefit in the same way. If a plan chooses to pay less than Medicare for some benefits, like skilled nursing facility care, the savings may be passed along to consumers by offering lower copayments for doctor visits. Medicare Advantage plans use a portion of the payments they receive from the government for each enrollee to offer supplemental benefits. Some plans limit their members’ annual out-of-pocket spending on medical care, providing insurance against catastrophic costs over $5,000, for example. Many plans offer dental coverage, vision coverage and other services not covered by Medicare Parts A or B, which makes them a good value for the health care dollar, if you want to use the provider included in the plan's network or "panel" of providers.
Summary: Medicare Advantage customers also get extras, more than a typical Medicare customer. They get preventive care, wellness programs, and closer more personal patient care. Also, in the wiki it notes that more people are leaving Medicare Advantage. But it also notes that people who are on Advantage stay less in hospitals, less re-admissions into hospitals, and less admissions.Quote:
Because the 2003 payment formulas overpay plans by 12 percent or more compared to traditional Medicare, in 2006 enrollees in Medicare Advantage Private Fee-for-Service plans were offered a net extra benefit value (the value of the additional benefits minus any additional premium) of $55.92 a month more than the traditional Medicare benefit package; enrollees in other Medicare Advantage plans were offered a net extra benefit value of $71.22 a month more. However, Medicare Advantage members receive additional coverage and medical benefits not enjoyed by traditional Medicare members, and savings generated by Medicare Advantage plans may be passed on to beneficiaries to lower their overall health care costs. Other important distinctions between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare are that Medicare Advantage health plans encourage preventive care and wellness and closely coordinate patient care. Medicare Advantage Plans that also include Part D prescription drug benefits are known as a Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug plan or a MA-PD.
Lieberman actually is not a Democrat, he lost the CT Dem primary in 2006 and became the the sole member of the "Connecticut for Lieberman" party. So yea, not a Democrat. Not just that, but he unquestionably backed Bush's neoconservative war agenda for years and campaigned for McCain in 2008. Indeed, by all accounts McCain wanted Joementum as his VP, but he acquiesced to his staff who pushed for Palin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Advocate
BTW that shit about Bush is fucking comical. Stop spouting that nonsense. The way Bush governed was and is the way Republicans govern. There is no such thing as a "small government conservative" in power and there never will be. It's all talk.
Click for full size
How Come Batman got some hairy legs and a bald ass chest?
Man, one county. I guess that means they all do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by dave is ok
This process had barely begun in June. The House passed their bill in early November, which was mostly because of Finance Committee being cocks and spending a few months figuring out how to reform the industry they all get so much money from. The Senate bill passed on Christmas eve, amazingly. Now that everyone agrees it's a terrible bill with all sorts of deals for the votes - I'm amazed it was ever passed in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Advocate
They all do. Just not to the extent McAllen, TX does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
It is amazing to think that only 50 years ago, most of MS was like that. My grandfather would trade services for things or work.Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
There is a dark side to that however. There was a doctor in MS about a 100 years ago that would make you sign an agreement before he did any major surgeries. The agreement was you paid or gave him a fraction of your property. He ended up owning almost a 1/4 of a county before he died. I'm amazed he didn't get a bullet in his back for that trick.
Do you actually know any doctors, personally?Quote:
Originally Posted by dave is ok
Yep. You can't throw a rock in Massachusetts without hitting a doctor or someone in med school, unlike Mississippi - where the doctors are about as smart as the rocks in Massachusetts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fe 26
Not that long ago - Blue Cross Blue Shield basically ran a single payer system in many states and it worked fine, young people bought into it because it was cheap as fuck.
The same thing ruined healthcare that ruined the banking industry in this country - greed.
Those ads piss my dad off. He doesn't think it is the patient's business to tell him what they want a prescription for. You get crazy stupid assholes coming in wanting something because it was on TV, as if they were buying a car or a hamburger.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
One thing that is fucked up about big pharm is that the laws are changing on what they can and can not spend money on. They can run million dollar ad campaigns but they can't give a doctor a gift over $5 in worth. They are also wanting to cut out their ability to fund educational stuff. My Dad goes yearly to Florida along with the other doctors in MS for a week of lectures on new studies and procedures. This was paid for by pharm companies (not the trip, just the lectures) in exchange for 1 day where they could talk to the Doctors about their new medicine. Law makers are wanting to make it where Pharm can't pay for that. You know, one thing that actually has the potential to help all of a doctor's patients, more and fresh knowledge.
Why do you bother? I know you're bating. I'm not SpoDaddy.Quote:
Originally Posted by dave is ok
So the dotors you know, have told you that they run lots of test that they know are unessary just to pad their wallets? They've admitted this? Every single one of them?
I don't think anyone will say otherwise. I have my doubts that it caused by a nation of highly educated evil greedy doctors that all want new boats, however.Quote:
Originally Posted by dave is ok